Use or Not of the Quote Function

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Overtone - It really would be much easier if you learned to use the quote function.

 

If I didn't know better I might wonder if you were being deliberately obtuse and creating arguments that are difficult to follow in order to avoid simple rebuttal. Picking a few sentences from two comments by two separate posters taken from over 50 posts and replying to them without context or citation could be seen as obfuscatory.

 

You clearly take time in creating your comments and put effort into the wording in your posts; a few more seconds to use the quote function and allow other members to follow the argument is not too much to ask - is it? Unless, of course, the preference is to preach from a soapbox and thus seek to eschew proper debate rather than welcome it. It is standard academic practice to make one's argument as easy to follow and open as possible; it is the "arrogance" of the confident scholar - my argument is easy to follow but difficult to refute.

 

We all acknowledge that the quote function is far from perfect - but it does work - and the refusal to take advantage of this feature could appear to the disinterested observer as a fear of challenge.

 

If you wish to find out more about the quote function - or discuss this matter please do so in the Support Forum. Do not respond here.

 

[overtone]

This is not a response to anything, or an attempt at a discussion - it is an observation: The quote function identifies the author of the quote.

 

The issue of the lack of self-awareness among self-identified scientists is the aspect of the OP topic - the demise of science - that I choose to address. There are other aspects - the political threat from creationists and other religion-backed sources of power, especially - but others have noted them adequately. This is my focus:

 

- - - - That kind of argument - ignoring the larger body of data, or in this case ignoring the larger body of theory and the huge gaps in the data - is {too often} - -

- - - - -

- disturbing, also relevant to the thread, because it is coming from the scientific and technological elite - not the ignorant and unfortunately confused regular citizenry.

 

It is my proposition that vulnerability to the very human factors succinctly described in their mercenary aspect by Upton Sinclair - “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - but not limited to money only, is a danger to science and a proper discussion subject in this thread.

That is: the kinds of intellectual compromise and corruption and self-serving self-deception and bizarre obliviousness that brought us "scientific" certification of safety for leaded gasoline, industrially created trans fats in our diet, food colorings of certain dangerous kinds, artificial sweeteners, genetic uniformity in food crops, DDT and 2-4D and the rest, asbestos, mercury preservatives in children's vaccines, Fukushima's power plants, physically dangerous drugs that underperform placebos being overprescribed for poorly characterized behavioral problems, and so forth,

are a subtle but pervasive, serious, and growing, danger to science itself.

We can see more easily how commercial and political pressures damaged biological science and economics in the Soviet Union, anthropology and history and probably (had it lasted) a few others in the Third Reich, because we are outsiders looking back. As insiders looking forward, we find our own systematic threats are not as immediately apparent, must be deduced by reason and dispassionate identification of irrationality.

GMOs should be the perfect modern example, because the claims from so much of the scientific elite are so flagrantly lacking in scientific support or even ordinary reason - we get a clear look at the factors of interest. So that would be handy. But if that is too contentious, the certification of safety in the siting of nuclear power plants (and the "scientific" response to both mishaps and the soundly reasoned cointemporary questioning of their safety) should be far enough in the past but close enough to current situations to be useful. Any others preferred?

Edited December 25, 2014 by overtone

[Strange]

This is not a response to anything, or an attempt at a discussion - it is an observation: The quote function identifies the author of the quote.

 

It does, or should do. Oddly, that is not true of any of your posts in this thread.

[hypervalent_iodine]

It does, or should do. Oddly, that is not true of any of your posts in this thread.

 

Or in almost any thread, for that matter.

[overtone]

This is not a response to anything, or an attempt at a discussion - it is an observation: The quote function identifies the author of the quote.

It does, or should do. Oddly, that is not true of any of your posts in this thread.

It does, or should do. Oddly, that is not true of any of your posts in this thread.

 

Or in almost any thread, for that matter

.

Of course.

But I am directly forbidden to discuss the matter here, by the very people broaching the topic here and addressing me in the matter. So if you guys insist on elaborating, it's going to be a one sided conversation - not the first of its type, on this self-described "scientific" forum.

Which makes it relevant to the thread, strangely enough. So carry on, by all means.

Along the way, one of you might mention some of the actual issues presented for discussion in post 62, and analyze your reasons for choosing the distant and barely relevant matter you did, over such possible discussion topics (two-sided! potentially, anyway) as this:

 

We can see more easily how commercial and political pressures damaged biological science and economics in the Soviet Union, anthropology and history and probably (had it lasted) a few others in the Third Reich, because we are outsiders looking back. As insiders looking forward, we find our own systematic threats are not as immediately apparent, must be deduced by reason and dispassionate identification of irrationality.

GMOs should be the perfect modern example, because the claims from so much of the scientific elite are so flagrantly lacking in scientific support or even ordinary reason - we get a clear look at the factors of interest.

Edited December 30, 2014 by overtone

[swansont]

But I am directly forbidden to discuss the matter here

 

No, but you were invited to discuss it elsewhere.

[overtone]

Edited December 31, 2014 by overtone

[Acme]

I think the forbidden issue Overtome was referring to was GMO's; not the issue of ref-using the quote function. IIRC we have a thread already on using the quote function that one of the mods started.

Yes; here it is: Quotes Rule?

[hypervalent_iodine]

Overtone, I was referring to your inability to use the quote function properly. It is very frustrating to have to figure out who you're talking to in a thread when you are responding to multiple posts and don't include their names in the quoted text. I assume it's because you are manually entering the BBcode tags instead of hitting the quote button?

[overtone]

From the other thread: "Nothing from me, overtone, was a hijack on any topic. The posts from me that you moved were directly relevant and appropriate in {that} thread, with no content appropriate to "Suggestions and Support". It's a pain to retype stuff in a thread: please return them. "

 

I can no longer edit the inappropriate bulk of the content from the older posts, to fit them into this new thread somebody seems to want really, really, badly. I have done what I can to clean things up, make some kind of sense - hope it helps your discussion here, whatever the topic is supposed to be.

 

ciao.

Edited December 31, 2014 by overtone

[swansont]

Nothing from me, overtone, was a hijack on any topic. The posts from me that you moved were directly relevant and appropriate in this thread, with no content appropriate to "Suggestions and Support". It's a pain to retype stuff in a thread: please return them.

 

The topic where this originated was "The demise of science" so yes, discussion of the quote function is off-topic (i.e. not relevant nor appropriate) for that thread, and is indeed relevant for Suggestions, Comments and Support

[Acme]

The topic where this originated was "The demise of science" so yes, discussion of the quote function is off-topic (i.e. not relevant nor appropriate) for that thread, and is indeed relevant for Suggestions, Comments and Support

[membertip]Damn you staffers can be obtuse. The taboo topic in that thread -which Overtone referred to here [now] was GMos. He was told:[membertip]

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Let's not make this another discussion about GMO's. Keep discussion in line with the OP.

[membertip]Moreover, he didn't bring up the quote thing either; that was Imatfaal here:[membertip]

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Overtone - It really would be much easier if you learned to use the quote function.

 

If I didn't know better I might wonder if you were being deliberately obtuse and creating arguments that are difficult to follow in order to avoid simple rebuttal. Picking a few sentences from two comments by two separate posters taken from over 50 posts and replying to them without context or citation could be seen as obfuscatory.

 

You clearly take time in creating your comments and put effort into the wording in your posts; a few more seconds to use the quote function and allow other members to follow the argument is not too much to ask - is it? Unless, of course, the preference is to preach from a soapbox and thus seek to eschew proper debate rather than welcome it. It is standard academic practice to make one's argument as easy to follow and open as possible; it is the "arrogance" of the confident scholar - my argument is easy to follow but difficult to refute.

 

We all acknowledge that the quote function is far from perfect - but it does work - and the refusal to take advantage of this feature could appear to the disinterested observer as a fear of challenge.

 

If you wish to find out more about the quote function - or discuss this matter please do so in the Support Forum. Do not respond here.

[membertip]Now I get that Overtone has his moments, [who me? ] but it would be nice to see the actual issues addressed in the proper place/time.. If y'all were serious about going after the quote thing then I would expect to see mod notes admonishing John Cuthber's posts. (Sorry John, but you know I have addressed you directly already about this. ;-) )

Let's see some consistency so that everyone can play on a fair field. This business of inserting moderator comments and then forbidding comment just doesn't fly; it's hypocritical. I think a better way for mods to address problems is to send a PM with the problem material quoted and specific issues pointed out. Lecturing/scolding Mod notes derail threads as much if not more than failure to use quotes.[membertip]

[hypervalent_iodine]

The thread of conversation that overtone was directly replying to concerned the use of the quote function, not GMO's. So you're right, he didn't bring it up, but that's not the point. At all. Moreover, on my part at least it was a general observation - and one I've brought up before. The difference between this and how some like JohnC uses the quote function (or doesn't use it), is that it is usually clear who John is replying to. It is not always clear who overtone is replying to and that can make it difficult to read.

 

In any case, don't like that this has turned into a thread railing against one particular member. You are correct that this method is not an ideal way to go about it and so I am bowing out.

[studiot]

Back on topic.

 

Perhaps this thread could be converted to a poll type thread. Although I personally don't like poll threads and generally do not participate I can see the worth in this case.

 

I have said before that I find the quote function more of a hindrance than a help.

 

In particular I find, all too often, that if I quote a large body of text including some particular point I hope to discuss, the reply to my point is not about my point but something else so the exchange is a waste of both parties' efforts.

[Strange]

This thread was also partly stimulated by me responding to overtone's comment that the use of the quote function indicates who was being quoted. I noted that in many cases (including his comments) it didn't. I was just curious why it didn't and why he claimed it did. But I'm not really that bothered.

 

 

But I do disagree with this very strongly.

 

 

 

 

Oh, that's not very clear, is it. Shall we try it again with the quote function?

 

 

 

 

I have said before that I find the quote function more of a hindrance than a help.

 

But I do disagree with this very strongly.

 

Because, as you can see, it can be almost impossible to know what or who is being responded to. If you end up having to search back through pages of a thread to find the original writer of a comment and the context well, ... there are few topics that justify that effort.

[Acme]

Back on topic.

...

In particular I find, all too often, that if I quote a large body of text including some particular point I hope to discuss, the reply to my point is not about my point but something else so the exchange is a waste of both parties' efforts.

The trick then is to not quote a large body of text. A wall of text is as a wall of text does. If [royal] you need to address multiple points from a post then you can break up the quotes and address each point with a reply. Instead of typing in

for additional quote pieces, copy & paste the original leading quote header,

. This not only makes it unambiguous who you are quoting, it provides a direct link back via the swooshy arrow to the original post where all can be read in context. This is helpful in long threads as well as when bringing in germane material from other threads as I did for this split thread.

 

Proper -if not prim- citation is a hallmark of good technical writing.